Expensive, yes, but do you think that Foma can keep going with only two films in their catalog?

Yes, two convential B&W films, iso 100 and iso 400.

In 2001 Foma stopped their T800 film production due to a lack of interest from the market. The film was based on the same technology as this T200 film but due to weak technology too grainy for it's regular speed (iso 640).

The Fomapan T200 (creative 200) has in most developers a speed of iso 125-160. I like it very much in Rodinal 1+50 with an iso speed of 125, suitable for high sharpness and a type of special grain, therefore nice in my Leica M7, 135-36.
In tri acetate not so curly then on 120 roll film with a dark blue dye as A.H. layer.

I tried Foma 200 for the first time ever. I bought the last remaining rolls of the Arista.EDU 200 from Freestyle before they ran out of stock; at the time I wasn't aware that they were going to be discontinued.
The results are good. I feel the 100 and the 200 are very similar in their tonal reproduction. The EI for me was 125 with the 200 and 80 with the 100, so speed wise they are pretty close, about 2/3 stops apart.

There are definitely little specks and spots in the emulsion of the Foma films that I don't find in Kodak or Ilford films. Don't know if that is due to the supplier issue Foma has had. But after I'm done with this batch of Foma film, I'll probably jump back to all Kodak films. As beautiful as they are in their tonality, I just don't trust them as far as getting negatives that I can make large prints from anymore.

Foma 200 processed in replenished Xtol attached.

Attached Thumbnails

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Foma 100 / 200 / 400 comparison

And here is some scientific evidence that the Foma 100, 200, and 400 are virtually identical tonality wise. The attached file is a comparison of the Foma data sheets of the 100 200, and 400 emulsions. Spectral response curves are almost the same, the 200 sheets and 400 reaches farther into the 600nm spectrum, almost to 700nm, where the 100 and 200 rolls cut a little earlier. This confirms my suspicion above about them tonally looking the same.

So, the 200 is just a happy medium speed wise and grain wise between its two cousins. Perhaps it makes sense for Foma to only have the 100 and 400, and not have too many different products in times like these, where they can reduce inventory and cost of production? I don't know. But it is sad to see films go, that's for sure.

- Thomas

Attached Thumbnails

Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 02-22-2010 at 12:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

And here is some scientific evidence that the Foma 100, 200, and 400 are virtually identical tonality wise. The attached file is a comparison of the Foma data sheets of the 100 200, and 400 emulsions. Spectral response curves are almost the same, the 200 sheets and 400 reaches farther into the 600nm spectrum, almost to 700nm, where the 100 and 200 rolls cut a little earlier. This confirms my suspicion above about them tonally looking the same.

So, the 200 is just a happy medium speed wise and grain wise between its two cousins. Perhaps it makes sense for Foma to only have the 100 and 400, and not have too many different products in times like these, where they can reduce inventory and cost of production? I don't know. But it is sad to see films go, that's for sure.

- Thomas

Tom, I have used Foma 200 exclusively for
my 35mm film. I've grown attached to it for
a couple of reasons. First, the antihalation
layer seems less effective than other films,
allowing a slight halation in highlights when
overexposed -- a subtle effect that I like.
Second, the film dries perfectly flat -- no
bow or curl at all. Can you tell me whether
the 100 or 400 versions shares either or both
of these qualities?

I have used a fair bit of the Foma 400 in 35mm lately, and its grain is tremendously beautiful. I am of the opinion that the antihalation layer of this film is not as effective as that of Kodak or Ilford. The bright/dark adjacencies are not as crisp as with other films.

I've attached a neg scan that seems to perhaps emphasize this. No comparison to other film, though. I love the 400 film for portraiture.

The 400 dries flat as a nail.

The 100 is nice too, but too slow for me usually.

- Thomas

Attached Thumbnails

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Thomas, thanks for this. I bought a
can of the 200 last month and now
you make me think I should have
bought the 400 instead. I've attached
a couple of my photos shot on the
200, that exhibit the visual qualities
I admire in the film.

Sanders, I think you can find most of what you found in the 200 with the 400. It will be slightly grainier, but the grain is really pretty. Try a couple of rolls out. You may wish to develop the 400 a little longer than you process the 200. It takes a bit longer to build the highlight density it seems.

It would be interesting to see how you fare with the 400. Those are beautiful shots you attached. I remember them both from a couple of years back. Especially the one of Melanie is amazing!

- Thomas

"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh